You've just proven my point. To use a phone as a dedicated GPS as its primary mode, you must stop or not use some other functions your phone supplies -- including functions that your phone is actually designed to supply better than anything else. I'm sorry: That is not a good tradeoff for most.
I really don't think I said anything that proved your point. I don't really know what your point is. This thread, per the first post, was about in-car (built in or stand alone) GPS being better than a phone because the phone doesn't always have data. I've pointed out many times that is not 100% valid point and is misleading. You can if you use a little planning download data for most places you would want to go. And by most I mean more than the 718 built in one works. Now there may be some stand alone off roader unit or under water or whatever that is better, but thats was never my point. Maybe I wasn't clear enough, am I being clear now? We can keep going, but we are way off the original topic.
Is an in-car unit more convenient? In many ways yes, but is it better because it doesn't need a cell connection? Not in my opinion and I don't really see how anyone can argue otherwise. Nothing you have said has convinced me. I like to hear all side of an argument, I'm in no way angry, so if you have some other reason why in-car navigation is better than a phone please keep on sending it my way. I'm just pretty entrenched in my position at this point.
Furthermore, to use your phone in that mode, it must be plugged into power. If it is not, the battery will be spent within a couple of hours. The GPS antenna in the typical smartphone has a fraction of the sensitivity that the one a dedicated GPS unit uses; that's part of the reason they don't work well, if at all, in remote areas.
Finally: I'm not sure where you've used your phone as a GPS unit while hiking, but if you relied on it and nothing else in a remote area, that's not a very savvy thing to do. I've done multi-day wilderness hiking in locations such as West Texas, British Columbia, Tuscany, Alaska, and the aforementioned Scottish Highlands. Smartphones are useless in those places in any
Look: there are watches that have built-in GPS. There are also GPS units purpose built for hiking, trekking, boating, underwater use, etc. Would you use any of those in lieu of Nav in a car?
No, it doesn't. Read Post #4 by yours truly in this same thread here
. I actually tested it during a recent multi-day road trip. There's absolutely no comparison.
Your single post is anecdotal data. I have lots of anecdotal data that shows my phone was better than my Macan. If I'm going more than 100 miles I usually use both waze and my Macan's built-in navigation. I can tell you there are times one will wonder and the other wont. Usually if I miss a turn waze re-routes much faster. I've driven plenty of places without cell coverage and had no issues with the phone. I've also driven places where the macan had an out of date map and I followed it to a dead end or other such bad routing issues, but the phone knew about the issue. On a whole, I've had less issues with the phone then I have with the built in. Heck my built in crashes from time to time (I just got an update that should hopefully fix that). Waze has been more stable (not gonna claim it never crashes).
As to sensitivity of the GPS. I don't know what you mean by that. Are you talking about signal to noise? Are you talking about sample rate? In either case being in a remote area with clear view to the sky should have no real world difference between a dedicated GPS and a phone GPS. The signal to noise, i.e., the reception is better on the stand alone and in areas with interference AND no triangulation (your remote area, but must be in the mountains or something) will be better on a standalone/built-in unit. There are work arounds to that like a bluetooth GPS receiver, but I really didn't want to go that route.
Sample rate mostly matters in cities or race tracks, but in cities often the GPS is blocked which makes sample rate meaningless. Triangulation combined with dead reckoning is mostly used when GPS is blocked for extended periods. And once all the GNSS stuff comes on-line the phone should be better than the PCM 4 (which doesn't to my knowledge have support for GNSS).
Totally agree to your points about non-incar usage. My point in bringing up hiking is it really shouldn't work there, not that it was a good replacement for a true dedicated hiking unit. I mostly used it around the Columbia River Gorge, and had decent success with it.
Also agree to your point about battery being an issue, but its not hard to solve, so I don't really see it being a detractor more than any other negatives of using a phone. I'm mostly in the phone is better because its cheaper (map updates and traffic are free).
As to using your phone for phone things, well here in Oregon and probably in most places its illegal to use your phone without a hands free device while driving. I can do everything on my phone that I'm legally allowed to use it for while also using it for a navigation device (which I'm pretty sure is legal). Did it just yesterday, responded to an SMS using the google assistant while listening to Spotify (which pauses when you say "OK Google") and navigating to a location. Android auto lets you do all that. Admittedly, on my S7 it didn't all work, but my new S9 seems to work. But then, I doubt it would have worked even if I wasn't using the navigation, it was the google assistant that gave me issues.
Hope this thread is at least dispelling some of the mis-information, which is all I was hoping to do. Gotta sprinkle in some opinions here and there just for fun though.